On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 01:34:56PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 01:29:34PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > these are ALL wrong then with the 2.6 kernel and with the 2.6 rpms. Really. > > > Removing custom and all those hacks are *WRONG*. Even on 2.4. > > > Any kernel module that does that is *BROKEN* build wise. Extremely broken. > > > > Practice says otherwise. kernel module rpms for 2.4 and 2.6 are out > > there and are in use by several thousands of users without any > > problems regarding kernel infrastructure. > > they are still broken and violating the rules. Which rules? They are perfectly legal in the sense of external kernel module building. Only the /lib/modules/`uname -r`/updates folder needs to be resurrected for kernels 2.6.x/modules-init which is underway. > > > In FC2 that uses ZERO files from kernel-source (unlike FC1 where that was a > > > symlink into kernel-source). > > > Any other method WILL eventually result in non-working modules. > > > > They do work. > > for some value of work. I can guarantee you that this will break within the > next half year or so. Can you explain that? Why should that break and where (kernel upstream or rpm-wise) and what can be done to prevent this? If it is your choice please don't break it. You would be removing appreciated added value and would piss off all kernel-level ISVs and repos including fedora.us. > > google). Could you please revert that, and have it fixed in yum > > instead? > > no I can't really. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpJhLrGVzhnX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
